Thursday, April 19, 2007

Open Thread

Mostly this thread is for people who can't follow the rules in the thread below.

Here's something I got from Darrin Nordahl of the Design Center regarding Friday's Earth Week event:
On Friday, the Design Center and Steve Ahrens (Development Director for the Levee Improvement Commission) will host an Earth Day Event at the South End of the Skybridge, between 1 and 2 p.m. This is a chance for the public to learn more about the LeClaire Park Expansion and begin to see some the ideas that were shared through the various input sessions.

Also, on Monday at 6:30 p.m. at the RME (2nd Floor), we will have another public event that reveals all the input we’ve received from the inputs sessions, as well as show a programmatic plan for discussion and further input.


MikeK said...

An observation about the electoral math of the city council. In 2005 there were 5 wards that voted for aldermen who are generally categorized as "againsters" - the 3 holdovers (Ambrose, Lynn, Meyer) plus newbies Hammerlink and Van Fossen. They nearly carried the 6th ward as well (Brooke winning only after a recount). That would have been 6 of 8 wards. Yet in the same election, the "tuna crew" won 3 of 3 citywide offices. This is, I believe, telling us something.

It takes money to run citywide. It's relatively cheap to run in only 1/8 of the city. If the city were to move to a higher proportion of at-large aldermen, the council would increasingly represent money. If the city were to move to a still higher proportion of ward aldermen, the council would be less influenced by the deepest pockets.

QuadCityImages said...

I pretty much agree with all of that. Some againster-types say they want to get rid of some Alderman positions, but really they just want the specific people out. Less Alderman = fewer places for money to be spread, and more influence for those with the money.

Dale Gilmour wasn't that much of an againster though. At least at the forum/debates it didn't seem like it. I would have voted for him if I lived in the 6th ward. Maybe that's changed.

Also don't forget that Dumas played the anti-stormwater fee card as well.

Anonymous said...

Barnhill and Dumas both ran being against the storm water fee. When it came down to the vote they voted for it.
I love french silk pie.

Anonymous said...

There are radicals downtown who want to take over this city, and they are in favor of smaller elections.
Some, like Wally, really want to ram their own viewpoints down everybody's throats. I have nice shoes.

Anonymous said...

I agree with the 8:54 poster regarding deep pockets for city wide elections, but keep in mind that the at-large category was not son by an incredible margin, if I remember correctly Cunningham lost to frink by a relatively small margin and had nowhere near the $$$ for his campaign that others had. I just wanted to add that so individuals out there thinking of running in November wouldn't be so discouraged if they don't have the "deep pockets". The bigger the "pool" of candidates is the more likely the best candidate for the job will be elected.

QuadCityImages said...

You're remembering incorrectly. Howard barely won over Vance, and Cunningham got last place. Frink got more votes than anyone except Winborn. Here are the totals:

IAN A. FRINK . . . . . .7,022 26.98%
JAMIE L. HOWARD . . . . .6,577 25.27%
DAN VANCE . . . . . . .6,535 25.11%
DOUGLAS S. CUNNINGHAM . . .5,807 22.31%

It was fairly close all around.

Anonymous said...